To know when people like your submissions, answer your questions, reply to you, etc., please create a free account and log in. Premium membership is also available for just $12 a year, which removes all adverts, prioritises your submissions, and more.

I remember this film about a family who move to a new house, and there is a factory with girl dolls in it. The dolls come alive and cause mayhem, including a scene where a women is electrocuted in a pool of water in a basement, and a little girl slowly gets more possessed by one of the dolls. What's the film title?

Anyone familiar with a film about a man with 8 kids who gets transferred to Australia? Once there, the man is constantly traveling for work and the rest of the family have to adjust to outback life. I think they eventually herd sheep and earn money from wool. The father come back, only to tell the mother that he wants a divorce and will be moving back to America. The mother decides to stay in Australia and sell wool.

Chosen answer:My best guess would have to be either the James Bond 007 series (22 films currently with a 23rd on the way) or the Friday the 13th series (11 parts including Freddy vs Jason). In terms of "pure" sequels, Star Trek currently stands at 10 films.

I am frustrated because I can't remember the title of a film. I remember very little about the film. I think it was about a train crash in a tunnel. I'm sure there was a scene where someone was either trying to get past or put out a long thick cable which was making sparks or something. Any help?

Chosen answer:Try Daylight. It is a car crashing into a truck illegally carrying toxic waste which blocks the tunnel. Then a bunch of prison inmates were trying to get out of the truck and there was a live wire hanging from the roof. Also A short walk to Daylight. 1972. James Brolin plays a New York cop who lead a group of people to safety after Hippie terrorists blow up the subway tunnels. Just like Daylight, they go through many obstacles to survive.

There was this film about a child who wanted to be a spy/detective. There was a scene where the boy was hiding under a bed, and there was a girl with blonde hair dancing around in the room, with ballet shoes on. I think the plot was something like four kids were hiding out/staying in an empty flat/apartment, and were spying on some people. There was also something about diamonds in a teddy bear. Does anyone know the title for this film?

I saw a cartoon or similar where a guy needed ivory, so he looked up in a book that ivory comes from elephants. He went up to a live elephant and tried to saw his tusks off, and the elephant threw him off. Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Chosen answer:This was from a Bugs Bunny cartoon with the Elmer Fudd. He goes looking for the tusks to cook dinner and this happens.

I remember a black and white film. It was a horror/thriller and it started with a scene of a car driving up the driveway to a spooky house. The excellent thing was the ending of the film was exactly the same with the same scene of a car driving up the driveway?

Chosen answer:This could be "Dead of Night" (1945). It's a good spooky British anthology film about a man who has a recurring dream about going to a party at an old mansion. Within the dream framework, there are other stories about a ghost child, a haunted mirror and a ventriloquist.

Chosen answer:That sounds like the Jean Claude Van Damme film "Sudden Death". In one scene he is fighting the terroist in the mascot costume in a kitchen. After using many instruments to hurt her she gets caught on the dishwasher line and Van Damme turns the machine on and it kills her.

Why exactly are film ratings in the US voluntary instead of legally required like in many other countries. I know that in countries like England, Australia and NZ they are legally required for any film/video that will be shown, sold or rented in that country. Also why do studios submit their films for ratings if they are voluntary? I find it peculiar especially for controversial films like Showgirls for example, as the NC-17 rating kills any chance the film has at the box office when they could just leave it unrated and avoid all the stigma it attaches to itself?

Chosen answer:For one thing, the US is a place in which the sociopolitical climate has always favored liberty over governmental control. Certain issues - drivers' licensing, for instance - obviously require intervention; movie rating is not seen as one of them. This is probably also compounded by the fact that the MPAA and similar bodies are hugely wealthy and powerful, and can afford a lot of lobbying to prevent any such legislative requirement from coming to pass. As far as actually getting the voluntary ratings - it's nearly suicide to NOT get one. The number of films that have generated any significant financial success without being MPAA rated is effectively zero. It seems as though the bulk of the movie-watching public WANTS to be protected from certain levels of 'indecency.'

Could someone explain how they achieve shots in which two points of objects are at different positions from each other but are both in focus. I have noticed it in a few films and most recently Million Dollar Baby. In one shot I recall Clint Eastwood is standing in his office and Hilary Swank is training in the gym below him. Eastwood is in the right of frame and the left part of the frame shows Hilary Swank and both are in focus despite the large distance between each other. Is it some special camera filter they use? I noticed a little out of focus blur around the middle of the frame. If not how exactly do they achieve the effect?

Chosen answer:Orson Wells first acheived this in "Citizen Kane." It's a combination of position between the lens and actors and the lens focus. There is no exact formula on how to acheive it; mostly trail and error. For example, have the lens tighten in on one actor and have the other move around until they come into focus.

What's the horror film about a boy and girl travelling in a car and he ties her shoelaces together while the parents are driving to the new house? The car has an accident and the girl can't get out. At the new house the boy gets haunted by his sister - I remember a scene of a pizza cutter being run up the walls.

What is the film where a mother and her teenage boy live by a lake and the boy is hounded by some gang or organisation and then they send the mother a video tape of her son having gay sex with one of his attackers/kidnappers? She gets revenge on this person/gang?

I only ever saw this last five minutes of this film, but I'm dying to know what it is. It was in black and white.It ends on a subway train. Two crazy guys are harassing a couple with a young girl, screaming at them and throwing things out of the woman's purse. A uniformed soldier with his arm in a cast stands up and tells them to stop. The crazies attack him. The soldier beats them unconscious, but is stabbed in the stomach. His friend rushes to his aid, whereas the soldier asks why he didn't help in the fight. The guy runs off to get help. Police soon arrive and instantly start arresting the only black guy on the train. The other passengers point out the real criminals, who are dragged off, along with the injured soldier. A wino passed out on a bench groans and rolls to the floor. Passengers step over him to exit the train.

Is there any reason why actors/actresses don't have credits in some films when they generally have a small role or cameo. I have seen this seems to especially apply to animated film where top stars are left uncredited. An example is Beavis & Butthead do America in which Bruce Willis, Demi Moore and Greg Kinnear were all uncredited despite having large roles. Has this got anything to do with the SAG? I know SAG has tight rules about actors who receive credits are also supposed to be given certain benefits under union rules.

Chosen answer:Sometimes previous commitments make them unable to have their name attached to something. Examples include Michael Jackson and Dustin Hoffman, who both appeared uncredited in The Simpsons (or rather, credited under false names), for the simple reason that they were unable, due to contract obligations, to have their name appear in conjuction with it.

I always assumed that the widescreen versions of films were the entire viewing area, and the fullscreen versions had part of the viewing area cut off from the sides so that it would fill the television screen. However, I recently noticed a couple of movies whose fullscreen versions had *more* to see on the top and bottom, meaning that the widescreen versions had part of the top and bottom cut off. Why on earth would they cut portions of the top and bottom off of the viewing area, when it is completely unnecessary to do so?

Chosen answer:A frame of film is square, rather than rectangular, so there are two options to get a widescreen picture. If an anamorphic lens is used, then the entire frame is used to capture a slightly horizontally squashed image, then in projection the entire frame is stretched out into widescreen. The other route taken is to block off the top and bottom of the frame, resulting in the correct rectangular shape. In projection a metal plate is used to only display this rectangular area. Because only the central region is meant to be shown, filmmakers will very often put boom mikes or other things just outside of that area - after all, otherwise a microphone will have to be further away from the actors just to avoid an unused area of film anyway. However, if a fullscreen (4:3 ratio) version is created by including these top and bottom sections rather than cropping the sides (possibly because both edges of the screen have to be seen in that shot, otherwise something important will be cropped), some things will be seen which were never meant to be. A good example is seen in the fullscreen version of "The Matrix" - when Neo receives the mobile phone near the start, you can see a crew member's hand in shot at the bottom of the screen. This is also the reason some people think a boom mike is accidentally in shot for the entirety of a movie when they see it in a theatre. If the projectionist hasn't positioned the metal plate properly, the bottom of the correct area is cut off, and too much of the top is shown, frequently exposing the microphone. So ultimately the top and bottom can only be used when they don't contain film-making equipment, and even then the framing of the shot may look odd, as the film was never shot with those parts of the screen in mind.

What is the difference between subtitles and closed-captions? Over here in England we don't bother with c-c's, but I've noticed that a lot of my R1 discs have subtitles in some languages and c-c's in others. Also, on some discs the 'subtitle' button will display the c-c's but on others it won't. In those cases how do I display the c-c's?

Chosen answer:Closed-captioning is for the hearing-impaired, and thus displays things like sound effects (ie *doorbell ringing*) and musical notes on either side of the dialogue to represent singing, whereas subtitling is usually just a translation of the dialogue. As for displaying the c-c's, it probably depends on the DVD in question, though some TVs and DVD players have built in c-c settings which can be turned on to access the captioning.

What is the job of the "best boy" that is sometimes listed in movie credits?

Chosen answer:The best boy is traditionally the assistant to the Gaffer (head electrician), although now it is a common term for the second in command of any department, so you may see 'best boy rigging' or similar. It's not even mandatory to be a boy either, female best boys include Julie Fife and Kristina Gore Trevail (who was billed as Best Girl).

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.